Daniel Perry, 17, had online conversations with someone he believed was a girl of the same age in the US.

He took his own life after a recording was used to try to blackmail him, and following a warning that he would be "better off dead" if he failed to pay up.

Less than an hour after receiving the message last month, he jumped to his death from the Forth Road Bridge.

It also emerged that he was taunted on the controversial website Ask.fm in the weeks before his death.

The site has already been linked to the deaths of four teenagers and is facing a backlash from advertisers following the suicide of 14-year-old Hannah Smith from Leicestershire, who suffered months of abuse from online bullies.

The Scottish teenager who took his own life on July 15 was also urged to kill himself by "trolls" on the website.

The apprentice mechanic from Fife was described by his mother Nicola as a happy teenager and the "last person you would think would their life".

She added: "Knowing him as I do, he has felt embarrassed, horrified and has thought he's let everybody down.

"He was coming up for his 18th birthday so it's not as if we could have been checking what he was doing on his laptop.

"However, he wasn't doing anything wrong, just what anyone his age might do, but this scam is all about exploiting young people.

"Even if he came to me and said he needed money we'd have helped him but we knew nothing about any of it.

"He was not the type of person who let things get him down. He was a happy laddie, not depressed and the last type of person you would think would take their life."

On the day of his death, Daniel posted his Skype details on his Twitter account, telling followers to "skype me."

Shortly before killing himself, he asked his blackmailers: "What can I do to stop you showing this to my family?"

He was then told to pay funds into a named bank account or his life would not be worth living. He replied, "bye."

Later that day he sent a text message to his grandmother telling her he was on his way home but instead went to the Forth Bridge and jumped.

He was still alive when rescued by a lifeboat crew, but died shortly afterwards.

Mrs Perry said: "It was a female that he was talking to, she was supposed to be from Illinois. I believe they were talking for a few months and he believed he was talking to this American girl.

"But whoever is behind this scam has manipulated the footage. These people are clever and dangerous.

"I believe he didn't give them any money and I don't know how much they asked from him.

"When I feel strong enough I want to do something to stop this happening to other young people. I'll go to the high schools and tell them what can happen.

"If I can stop this from happening to other young people then I feel I'll have done something for him."

A spokesman for Police Scotland said the force was investigating the incident.

-------------------------------

What this means for DDO:

If you see something, say something. If you know about something, say something. Don't wait. Don't debate. Just do it. I don't think anything like this has ever happened on DDO, but it's possible, which is why as a community we have a responsibility to look out for those around us.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed. Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed. Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

biased intervention, that is.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed.

So, recognize that while we should watch ourselves, it is equally necessary to watch others. I think, though, that your response is more an effort to be a contrarian than it is something you genuinely think (because it's a fairly absurd assertion), so I'll leave it at that.

Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

That is different, of course, than the online identity fraud/blackmail; that I think is more clearly something for which the person must bear the responsibility of consequences. That's some Apeiron level ish, right there.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed.

So, recognize that while we should watch ourselves, it is equally necessary to watch others. I think, though, that your response is more an effort to be a contrarian than it is something you genuinely think (because it's a fairly absurd assertion), so I'll leave it at that.

Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

I don't know why you resort to ulterior motive explanations when you seem to thoroughly disagree with something. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just telling you that, at least for this website, your concern is extremely misplaced. People aren't so emotionally moved as to take their own lives unless the harassment is pluralized. And often times, when that harassment is sponsored by a group of people, those people feel justified in performing it, and partially derive that justification from the consent of their peers. This is behavior that has been exhibited by members of DDO on multiple occasions, and so this form of unwitting harassment is not defeated by monitoring others, but by monitoring ourselves. I'm saying that it is the latter that should be emphasized as a lesson from the OP.

No attempts at contrariety, just telling you the truth.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed.

So, recognize that while we should watch ourselves, it is equally necessary to watch others. I think, though, that your response is more an effort to be a contrarian than it is something you genuinely think (because it's a fairly absurd assertion), so I'll leave it at that.

Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

I don't know why you resort to ulterior motive explanations when you seem to thoroughly disagree with something. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just telling you that, at least for this website, your concern is extremely misplaced. People aren't so emotionally moved as to take their own lives unless the harassment is pluralized. And often times, when that harassment is sponsored by a group of people, those people feel justified in performing it, and partially derive that justification from the consent of their peers. This is behavior that has been exhibited by members of DDO on multiple occasions, and so this form of unwitting harassment is not defeated by monitoring others, but by monitoring ourselves. I'm saying that it is the latter that should be emphasized as a lesson from the OP.

No attempts at contrariety, just telling you the truth.

Well, now, hold on. Group behavior doesn't necessarily include the entire population. So, let's say there's a group bashing on some poor newbie and mercilessly bullying him. It's all well and good to watch one's own behavior and not participate, but I think YYWs point was that it would also behoove you to say something, either in the space where the bullying is occurring or to report it.

To draw an analogy, if there's broken windows on house, it's more likely for other people to vandalize it. Then it sort of becomes a "group" activity, and can result in significant damage. It's all well and good to not throw rocks at the house yourself, but it would also be a good thing to notify someone or try to stop others from throwing rocks.

Make sense?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 8/15/2013 3:29:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

Can you blame them completely? Probably not, but you can still hold them accountable for their contribution to a train of events that lead to an invariably tragic outcome.

That is different, of course, than the online identity fraud/blackmail; that I think is more clearly something for which the person must bear the responsibility of consequences. That's some Apeiron level ish, right there.

Well, now, hold on. Group behavior doesn't necessarily include the entire population. So, let's say there's a group bashing on some poor newbie and mercilessly bullying him. It's all well and good to watch one's own behavior and not participate, but I think YYWs point was that it would also behoove you to say something, either in the space where the bullying is occurring or to report it.

To draw an analogy, if there's broken windows on house, it's more likely for other people to vandalize it. Then it sort of becomes a "group" activity, and can result in significant damage. It's all well and good to not throw rocks at the house yourself, but it would also be a good thing to notify someone or try to stop others from throwing rocks.

Make sense?

In principle that makes perfect sense. I'm just saying that as far as DDO is concerned, it is not likely that harassment will come from some subgroup that impel YYW, for example, to say something against it. I'm saying that, what with YYW's (and others') deep sense of justified biased retaliation, it is more likely that he (and they) would be the ones engaged in harassment, unwittingly, and so his vigilance should be more heavily directed inward than outward.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed.

So, recognize that while we should watch ourselves, it is equally necessary to watch others. I think, though, that your response is more an effort to be a contrarian than it is something you genuinely think (because it's a fairly absurd assertion), so I'll leave it at that.

Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

I don't know why you resort to ulterior motive explanations when you seem to thoroughly disagree with something.

Really, I just thought that you had the good sense to recognize the nonsense of what you were saying, but I shouldn't have assumed, because it's clear that it needs to be explained to you, so I'll try to do that now.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just telling you that, at least for this website, your concern is extremely misplaced. People aren't so emotionally moved as to take their own lives unless the harassment is pluralized.

To be clear: I think that because you've never been in -or, if you have been, recognized a situation so volatile that it could result in a kid's taking their own life, as a result of online interactions. I could be wrong, but the fact that you seem to be under the impression that because something like that hasn't happened on DDO before, that it isn't going to happen in the future. Even still, why people who make the decision to take their own lives varies widely, and while it may be more likely that harassment from a group of people is more likely to contribute to a person's deciding to take their own life, that does not mean that one person could do it. That established, though, still does not change the importance of the rule that if you see something, you should say something, as Bladerunner reinforced.

And often times, when that harassment is sponsored by a group of people, those people feel justified in performing it, and partially derive that justification from the consent of their peers.

So, recognize further that what a person feels is not sufficient to justify anything, and if it's kids harassing kids I grant you that it's questionable who is/isn't in the wrong -which is why for disputes among kids, it is probably best to only let moderators handle it if you don't feel comfortable pointing out why someone's behavior is inappropriate in the moment that you see it.

However, your point that seeing other people doing something can function almost as a "license to act" is both salient and necessary to point out. The tendency to "follow the crowd" when the "crowd" is doing something unacceptable is especially problematic, but that only serves to emphasize the importance of saying something when you see something that's off base -or if it appears to be off base.

You've really strawmanned my argument in several ways. I didn't say that devastating harassment is unlikely to occur on DDO. I didn't say that it is unnecessary to watch others and rebuke them where they cross the line. I didn't say that suicide induced by one online bully doesn't occur. What I did say is that you should turn your attention to a more furtive and widespread source of harassment that most often occurs here, and that even you are capable of - and that the only way to defeat it is with introspective restraint, and that without giving this monitoring special priority, your lesson will be pretty inconsequential.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/15/2013 3:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to expect blackmail on DDO, but the stories about suicide from online tauting are more applicable. I think we should pay careful attention to the plural in "trolls". Harassment of this level is not typically performed by an individual, so I think the lesson you're extrapolating from the story is flawed.

So, recognize that while we should watch ourselves, it is equally necessary to watch others. I think, though, that your response is more an effort to be a contrarian than it is something you genuinely think (because it's a fairly absurd assertion), so I'll leave it at that.

Rather than being watchmen, we should watch ourselves and ensure that we're never contributing any behavior that might make another member feel overwhelmed and ostracized.

This includes the capacity to distinguish between the interactions of a normal flamewar and severely demeaning insults - avoiding intervention in the former, lest you create the very circumstance you thought you were preventing.

I don't know why you resort to ulterior motive explanations when you seem to thoroughly disagree with something.

Really, I just thought that you had the good sense to recognize the nonsense of what you were saying, but I shouldn't have assumed, because it's clear that it needs to be explained to you, so I'll try to do that now.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just telling you that, at least for this website, your concern is extremely misplaced. People aren't so emotionally moved as to take their own lives unless the harassment is pluralized.

To be clear: I think that because you've never been in -or, if you have been, recognized- a situation so volatile that it could result in a kid's taking their own life, as a result of online interactions. I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that because of the fact that you seem to be under the impression that because something like that hasn't happened on DDO before, that it isn't going to happen in the future. Even still, why people make the decision to take their own lives varies widely, and while it may be more likely that harassment from a group of people is more likely to contribute to a person's deciding to take their own life, that does not mean that one person's couldn't do it. That established, though, still does not change the importance of the rule that if you see something, you should say something, as Bladerunner reinforced.

And often times, when that harassment is sponsored by a group of people, those people feel justified in performing it, and partially derive that justification from the consent of their peers.

So, recognize further that what a person feels is not sufficient to justify anything, and if it's kids harassing kids I grant you that it's questionable who is/isn't in the wrong -which is why for disputes among kids, it is probably best to only let moderators handle it if you don't feel comfortable pointing out why someone's behavior is inappropriate in the moment that you see it.

However, your point that seeing other people doing something can function almost as a "license to act" is both salient and necessary to point out. The tendency to "follow the crowd" when the "crowd" is doing something unacceptable is especially problematic, but that only serves to emphasize the importance of saying something when you see something that's off base -or if it appears to be off base.

*edited*

And moreover, I have never "retributively" gone after a kid. Ever. And I wouldn't, specifically because it would be wrong of me to do so. I might try to diffuse the situation, but I wouldn't go after someone younger than me, even if I knew them to be an aggressor.

Ike, I've been a member of a few online communities in my day -some that were considerably less stable than this one. I think that the reason that DDO is so stable is because the culture here is focused more on the discussion of ideas than it is on social interaction -which is why, in reality, I like DDO more.

Daniel Perry, 17, had online conversations with someone he believed was a girl of the same age in the US.

He took his own life after a recording was used to try to blackmail him, and following a warning that he would be "better off dead" if he failed to pay up.

Less than an hour after receiving the message last month, he jumped to his death from the Forth Road Bridge.

It also emerged that he was taunted on the controversial website Ask.fm in the weeks before his death.

The site has already been linked to the deaths of four teenagers and is facing a backlash from advertisers following the suicide of 14-year-old Hannah Smith from Leicestershire, who suffered months of abuse from online bullies.

The Scottish teenager who took his own life on July 15 was also urged to kill himself by "trolls" on the website.

The apprentice mechanic from Fife was described by his mother Nicola as a happy teenager and the "last person you would think would their life".

She added: "Knowing him as I do, he has felt embarrassed, horrified and has thought he's let everybody down.

"He was coming up for his 18th birthday so it's not as if we could have been checking what he was doing on his laptop.

"However, he wasn't doing anything wrong, just what anyone his age might do, but this scam is all about exploiting young people.

"Even if he came to me and said he needed money we'd have helped him but we knew nothing about any of it.

"He was not the type of person who let things get him down. He was a happy laddie, not depressed and the last type of person you would think would take their life."

On the day of his death, Daniel posted his Skype details on his Twitter account, telling followers to "skype me."

Shortly before killing himself, he asked his blackmailers: "What can I do to stop you showing this to my family?"

He was then told to pay funds into a named bank account or his life would not be worth living. He replied, "bye."

Later that day he sent a text message to his grandmother telling her he was on his way home but instead went to the Forth Bridge and jumped.

He was still alive when rescued by a lifeboat crew, but died shortly afterwards.

Mrs Perry said: "It was a female that he was talking to, she was supposed to be from Illinois. I believe they were talking for a few months and he believed he was talking to this American girl.

"But whoever is behind this scam has manipulated the footage. These people are clever and dangerous.

"I believe he didn't give them any money and I don't know how much they asked from him.

"When I feel strong enough I want to do something to stop this happening to other young people. I'll go to the high schools and tell them what can happen.

"If I can stop this from happening to other young people then I feel I'll have done something for him."

A spokesman for Police Scotland said the force was investigating the incident.

-------------------------------

What this means for DDO:

If you see something, say something. If you know about something, say something. Don't wait. Don't debate. Just do it. I don't think anything like this has ever happened on DDO, but it's possible, which is why as a community we have a responsibility to look out for those around us.

As sad as this is it till doesn't make me want to stand up against online bullying. The solution seems all to obvious.

At 8/15/2013 8:51:52 PM, Wnope wrote:Am I the only one who isn't quite clear WHAT the kid was blackmailed with that he would have told a teenage girl he met online?

The only things that come to mind are the kid doing some freaky sexting or admitting he is gay or the like.

The story does not say what the kid was being blackmailed for, but what he was blackmailed for is less salient than the fact that he was, in fact, blackmailed. Because of the fact that the story does not say what he was blackmailed for, I'd say it's safe to say that it's pretty significant, the journalist didn't know, or both.

At 8/15/2013 3:29:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

Of course you can lay some form of blame on them. A person shouldn't do sh1t like that, egging on a suicidal person for instance, with your example.

Frankly, your post sounds a bit like victim blaming. Could be wrong, and probably am, but there seems to be some implicit blame being shifted.

But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.
- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"

I would say that to the extent that it can be established that a person who killed themselves wouldn't have otherwise made that choice but for the actions of the other, whoever that "other" person is, they are accountable for causing a person's suicide.

Is a person who hands a suicidal person a gun responsible if the person they handed the gun to ends their life with the gun? Yes.

Is a person who blackmails someone into killing him or her self, whether they intended to cause a person to kill him or her self, accountable for that person's killing themselves? Yes.

At 8/15/2013 8:51:52 PM, Wnope wrote:Am I the only one who isn't quite clear WHAT the kid was blackmailed with that he would have told a teenage girl he met online?

The only things that come to mind are the kid doing some freaky sexting or admitting he is gay or the like.

The story does not say what the kid was being blackmailed for, but what he was blackmailed for is less salient than the fact that he was, in fact, blackmailed. Because of the fact that the story does not say what he was blackmailed for, I'd say it's safe to say that it's pretty significant, the journalist didn't know, or both.

What someone is blackmailed with does matter to how well people can relate and empathize with the story. If he took his life because he didn't want people to know that he liked blondes, everyone would scratch their heads and not care about him anymore. So it does, in a sense, matter.

However, because it is being investigated, it is likely serious, and that is probably why they are not saying. I do hope they catch whoever did the black mailing.

At 8/15/2013 3:29:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

Of course you can lay some form of blame on them. A person shouldn't do sh1t like that, egging on a suicidal person for instance, with your example.

Frankly, your post sounds a bit like victim blaming. Could be wrong, and probably am, but there seems to be some implicit blame being shifted.

Frankly, your point sounds a bit like you're making excuses.

It reads as though the person somehow can't control their actions. As I said, the heckler would be an a-hole. Yet, if the person who commits suicide REALLY can't control their actions, then, again, they have far more problems than someone telling them to jump, and it's incredibly likely that almost anything would have set them off. If they CAN control their actions? Then THEY made that decision. How, exactly, am I "victim blaming"?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 8/15/2013 8:51:52 PM, Wnope wrote:Am I the only one who isn't quite clear WHAT the kid was blackmailed with that he would have told a teenage girl he met online?

The only things that come to mind are the kid doing some freaky sexting or admitting he is gay or the like.

The story does not say what the kid was being blackmailed for, but what he was blackmailed for is less salient than the fact that he was, in fact, blackmailed. Because of the fact that the story does not say what he was blackmailed for, I'd say it's safe to say that it's pretty significant, the journalist didn't know, or both.

What someone is blackmailed with does matter to how well people can relate and empathize with the story. If he took his life because he didn't want people to know that he liked blondes, everyone would scratch their heads and not care about him anymore. So it does, in a sense, matter.

So, the fact that the kid thought it was significant enough to end his life over should tell you something...

And it could be that he had a blonde fetish, but that would be absurd, because the fact that he did kill himself is sufficient to tell us that it's pretty devastating.

However, because it is being investigated, it is likely serious, and that is probably why they are not saying. I do hope they catch whoever did the black mailing.

At 8/15/2013 9:19:03 PM, YYW wrote:Sort of in response to Blade and Ninja:

I would say that to the extent that it can be established that a person who killed themselves wouldn't have otherwise made that choice but for the actions of the other, whoever that "other" person is, they are accountable for causing a person's suicide.

Is a person who hands a suicidal person a gun responsible if the person they handed the gun to ends their life with the gun? Yes.

Only if they know they're suicidal.

Is a person who blackmails someone into killing him or her self, whether they intended to cause a person to kill him or her self, accountable for that person's killing themselves? Yes.

I could go on, but I think the idea is pretty clear...

I think we mostly agree. But I think, at the same time, that demonizing some folks' rhetorical flourishes is going to far. You aren't really doing that, it was just a point I was trying to get at.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 8/15/2013 3:29:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

Of course you can lay some form of blame on them. A person shouldn't do sh1t like that, egging on a suicidal person for instance, with your example.

Frankly, your post sounds a bit like victim blaming. Could be wrong, and probably am, but there seems to be some implicit blame being shifted.

Frankly, your point sounds a bit like you're making excuses.

It reads as though the person somehow can't control their actions. As I said, the heckler would be an a-hole. Yet, if the person who commits suicide REALLY can't control their actions, then, again, they have far more problems than someone telling them to jump, and it's incredibly likely that almost anything would have set them off. If they CAN control their actions? Then THEY made that decision. How, exactly, am I "victim blaming"?

Blame can be placed on multiple entities. Life if more complex than a simple one thing is the cause.

At 8/15/2013 8:51:52 PM, Wnope wrote:Am I the only one who isn't quite clear WHAT the kid was blackmailed with that he would have told a teenage girl he met online?

The only things that come to mind are the kid doing some freaky sexting or admitting he is gay or the like.

The story does not say what the kid was being blackmailed for, but what he was blackmailed for is less salient than the fact that he was, in fact, blackmailed. Because of the fact that the story does not say what he was blackmailed for, I'd say it's safe to say that it's pretty significant, the journalist didn't know, or both.

What someone is blackmailed with does matter to how well people can relate and empathize with the story. If he took his life because he didn't want people to know that he liked blondes, everyone would scratch their heads and not care about him anymore. So it does, in a sense, matter.

So, the fact that the kid thought it was significant enough to end his life over should tell you something...

And it could be that he had a blonde fetish, but that would be absurd, because the fact that he did kill himself is sufficient to tell us that it's pretty devastating.

There are a lot of absurd people in the world.

However, because it is being investigated, it is likely serious, and that is probably why they are not saying. I do hope they catch whoever did the black mailing.

At 8/15/2013 3:29:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:I agree, of course, that these are tragedies. And I agree that being vigilant is important. I do, however, question whether you can really lay the blame on the "online bullies" for taunting someone. If someone will kill themselves because of taunting from strangers on the internet, they've already got a bag of enough problems...sort of like when people on the ground tell someone on a bridge "go ahead, jump!"; they're still a-holes, of course, but nonetheless I don't think you can really lay the blame on them.

Of course you can lay some form of blame on them. A person shouldn't do sh1t like that, egging on a suicidal person for instance, with your example.

Frankly, your post sounds a bit like victim blaming. Could be wrong, and probably am, but there seems to be some implicit blame being shifted.

Frankly, your point sounds a bit like you're making excuses.

It reads as though the person somehow can't control their actions. As I said, the heckler would be an a-hole. Yet, if the person who commits suicide REALLY can't control their actions, then, again, they have far more problems than someone telling them to jump, and it's incredibly likely that almost anything would have set them off. If they CAN control their actions? Then THEY made that decision. How, exactly, am I "victim blaming"?

Blame can be placed on multiple entities. Life if more complex than a simple one thing is the cause.

At 8/15/2013 9:19:03 PM, YYW wrote:Sort of in response to Blade and Ninja:

I would say that to the extent that it can be established that a person who killed themselves wouldn't have otherwise made that choice but for the actions of the other, whoever that "other" person is, they are accountable for causing a person's suicide.

Is a person who hands a suicidal person a gun responsible if the person they handed the gun to ends their life with the gun? Yes.

Only if they know they're suicidal.

Or if they made them suicidal, intentionally or otherwise, by their actions...

Is a person who blackmails someone into killing him or her self, whether they intended to cause a person to kill him or her self, accountable for that person's killing themselves? Yes.

I could go on, but I think the idea is pretty clear...

I think we mostly agree. But I think, at the same time, that demonizing some folks' rhetorical flourishes is going to far. You aren't really doing that, it was just a point I was trying to get at.

Blame can be placed on multiple entities. Life if more complex than a simple one thing is the cause.

Indeed. And it is most certainly not a zero-sum game.

I agree with the above, and especially that life is not a zero-sum game.

I will go further with the analysis of the OP, and simply state that responding only when bullying reaches such an apex is neither practical, productive, or appropriate. There is every reason to nip it in the bud, where strong evidence of bullying (in which ironically the OP has admitted to engaging in spades) should be met with admonition, to which the OP, to my knowledge, has indeed been subjected. In this sense, I do believe DDO is doing well enough, even with its rather opaque regulatory environment.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Blame can be placed on multiple entities. Life if more complex than a simple one thing is the cause.

Indeed. And it is most certainly not a zero-sum game.

I agree with the above, and especially that life is not a zero-sum game.

I will go further with the analysis of the OP, and simply state that responding only when bullying reaches such an apex is neither practical, productive, or appropriate. There is every reason to nip it in the bud, where strong evidence of bullying (in which ironically the OP has admitted to engaging in spades) should be met with admonition, to which the OP, to my knowledge, has indeed been subjected. In this sense, I do believe DDO is doing well enough, even with its rather opaque regulatory environment.

Que?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!